



AGAINST THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII. 



To take Hawaii, therefore, means not only to change our traditional policy 
as to colonial aggrandizement and abolish the Monroe doctrine, but it means 
to absorb a population that are alien to our form of government and stran- 
gers to our institutions. 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. THOS. H. BALL, 

OF TEXAS, 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



"Wednesday, June IB, 1898. 



\ 



WASHINGTOM. 

1898. 



:B/s: 



72988 



^'^ ^ SPEECH 

. OF 

<^*'^HON. THOS. H. BALL. 



The House having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. ~'j9) to 
provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States- 
Mr. BALL said: 

Mr. Speaker: In the limited time allotted me I can not at- 
tempt a full or satisfactory discussion of the pending resolution. 
I would not speak at all did I not in my heart believe that the 
question under consideration involves the most crucial period in 
our national history, not excepting the fratricidal conflict between 
the States. 

The glowing picture presented by those who would lightly set 
aside the traditional policy of this Government and enter upon a 
career of colonial aggrandizement supported by a great army and 
navy, is certainly no more alluring than was Napoleon's dream 
of universal empire. Let us hope that, once entered upon, the re- 
sult may not prove equally disastrous, 

Mr. Speaker, in opposing this measure I shall present for the 
consideration of the House three propositions only. The annexa- 
tion of Hawaii by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unneces- 
sary, and unwise. If the first proposition be true, sworn to sup- 
port the Constitution, we should inqitire no further. I challenge 
not the advocates of Hawaiian amaexation, but those who advo- 
cate annexation in the form now presented, to show warrant or 
authority in oiir organic law for such acquisition of territory. 
To do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land 
but to strike down every precedent in our history. I know, as was 
said by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr, Di:csmoreJ , that the 
mention of the Constitution in this body often invokes a smile, 
and yet it can not be that a majority of this body agi"ee with tlie 
insignificant few '• that there is a higher law than the Constitu- 
tion;" or with that former member of this House who, in his good 
fellowship, " did not think the Constitution should ccme between 
friends," 

Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result 
of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be 
lawfully done. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Tawxey], 
in a very able argument in support of annexation on March 15 
last, rested his case upon the general i)ower in our (\)nstitution 
and the express power in the constitution of Hawaii, conferred 
upon the Presidents and Senates of the two countries, to conclude 
a treaty of annexation. Now that, in pursuance of those powers, 
the President has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate 
2 81S7 



and has been miable to obtain the consent of two-tlurds of that 
body we are called upon to override the constitutions of both parties 
to the proposed contract in order that we may do this thing. _ 

When Louisiana was acquired, when Florida was received, wnen 
Alaska came to us, no statesman connected witn the executive 
or lei?islative branch of the Government dreamed the teintoiy 
sought to be added to our possessions could be received, except by 
treifty duly ratified. In their desperation, grasping- at shadows 
for substahce, those who now resort to ^his subterfuge cite the 
admission of the imperial State from which I hail— Texas-as 
warrant and authority for their purpose. , ,, ^ ^ ,. 

Mr Speaker, no one familiar with the history of that transaction 
should make such claim. Advocates of the annexation of Texas 
rested their case upon the express power conferred upon Congress 
in the Constitution to admit new States. Opponents of the annex- 
ation of Texas contended that even that express power did not 
confer the right to admit States not carved from territory already 
belonging to^the United States or some one of the States forming 
the Federal Union. Whether, therefore, we subscribe to the ono 
or the other school of thought in that matter, we can find no prec- 
edent to sustain the method here proposed for admitting foreign 

^^Members need only refer to the extended debates in Senate and 
House of Representatives while the annexation of Texas was being 
. considered to be assured of the correctness of this conclusion, 
® The original proposition as otfered comtemplated the formation 
* of a State from certain prescribed limits within the territory em- 
7 braced in the Republic of Texas, while the balance of the area of 
^ the Republic was to be ceded as territory to the United States. The 
treaty having failed of ratification by the Senate, annexation by 
ioint resolution was resorted to, and the outcome of the who e 
matter was that the entire Republic of Texas was admitted as one 
State, with the right to carve therefrom four additional States, 
this being done fSr the purpose alone of coming withm the con- 
stitutional power to admit new States and m recognition of the 
fact that territory could only be constitutionally acquired by 

^^Flfave not time to review much that was interestingly said 
about the matter. I shall quote only a few of the opinions ad- 
vanced duSng the discussion of that matter. The Senate com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs consisted of five members, four of whom 
^uest'oned ?he ?ight to admit new States out of foreign territory 
daiming it could only be done by treaty, the other member of .the 
comSee admitting that foreign territoiT could only^^^^ 
by treaty, but contending that Texas could be admitted as a State 

Mr Walker, of Mississippi, claiming to be the aiithor of the 
idea to have Texas admitted under the clause of the Constitution 
authorizing Congress to admit new States, said— 

That he was reioiced that the great American question of the veaiincxa- 

January, 1844. 



3187 



•within tlio Union. The general power was in express words, and no man had 
a right to interpolate restrictions, especially restrictions which the f rainers 
of the Constitution had rejected. 

Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, the dissenting member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee, advocating the resolution, said: 

All the reasoning and ingenuity in the world could not abolish the plain 
language of the Constitution, which declared that new States might be ad- 
mit'ted by Congress into the Union. 

Mr. Henderson, of Mississippi, Mr. Benton, of Missouri, and other 
able advocates of the annexation of Texas urged the same argu- 
ments in support of the measure. 

In the House of Representatives Mr, Yancey, of Alabama, sup- 
porting the resolution, advanced the same line of argument. On 
the other hand, the opposition, insisting that the power to admit 
new States was confined to territory already belonging to the 
United States, put forward many able advocates. 

Mr. Morehead, of Kentucky, speaking for the Foreign Affairs 
Committee of the Senate, contended — 

In the case now under consideration it was not proposed by the joint resolu- 
tion before the Senate that Texas should be acquired according to what ho 
considered the constitutional mode of proceeding, by tlie ti-eaty making 
power. The proposition is for Congress to admit her as a State. IN ow— 

He asked — 

when this Government was about to add a foi'eign domain to ours, was 
there any other mode of accomplishing that object except by the interposi- 
tion of the treaty-making power, composed of the President of the United 
States in conjunction with the Senate? Was it constitutional t3 annex Texas 
by the treaty which was submitted to the Senate last session? 

He believed there were few, if any, constitutional objections made. If, 
then, the power to annex foreign territory by treaty does appertain to the 
treaty-making power, he should like to see upon what ground it could be 
held that the Congi-ess of the United States possesses concurrent legislative 
power upon this subject. If that which it is competent for the treaty-making 
power alone to accompli-sh. the majority of a quorum of both Houses of Con- 
gress could accomplish. The argument, he apprehended, would be this, that 
as a constitutional mode of proceeding we do not deny that foreign territory 
can be admitted into this Union by the treaty- making power. But there is 
another clause in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to admit 
new States into the Union. He proposed now to consider what was the char- 
acter of that article and upon what conditions it rests. [Mr. Buchanan: That 
is the true ground.] His friend from Pennsylvania said that was the ques- 
tion, and to it he proposed to call particular attention. 

Mr. Choate for three hours reviewed the whole question, bring- 
ing to bear his knowledge of the Constitution and its formation 
and the history of the country, clothed in redundant adjectives. 
He denied that the clause in the fourth article in the Constitution 
giving the power to Congress of admitting new States into the 
Union was given with the most remote idea of its being ever ap- 
plied to anything but domestic territory. Said he: 

No raan could believe that by that provision it was intended to confer the 
tremendous power of admitting new States in any part of the world without 
limitation as to habits, customs, language, principles, or anything but the 
semblance of republicanism. Until it was found the treaty of last session 
had no chance of passing the Senate, no human being save one, no man, 
woman, or child in the Union or otit of the Union, wise or foolish, drunk or 
sober, was ever heard to breathe one syllable about this power in the Consti- 
tution of admitting new States being applicable to the admission of foreign 
nations, governments, or states. It was a new and monstrous heresy on the 
Constitution, got up not from any well-founded faith in its orthodoxj-, but 
for the mere purpose of carrying a me.-isure by a b.are majority of Congress 
that could not bo carried by a two-thirds majority of the Senate iu accord- 
ance with the treaty-making power. 
:Ji87 



Mr. Speaker, I will not further quote from this disciission. The 
language used by Mr. Choate certain!}- applies with peculiar force 
to the proposition now pending, and the entire debate upon both 
sides of that proposition shows conclusively that the advocates ci 
this measure have no ground to stand upon so far as the annexa- 
tion of Texas is concerned. 

The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Pearson] and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Grosvexor] seek to aid their conten- 
tions in favor of this measure by the decision of Chief Justice 
Marshall. Let us see if they are sustained thereby: 

The course- 
Said Judge Marshall— 

which the argument has taken will require that in deciding this question 
the court should take into view the relation in which Florida stands lo the 
United States. The Constitution confers absolutely upon the Government 
the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that Gov- 
ernment possesses the power of acquii-ing territory either by conquest or by 
treaty. 

Thus it will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that Chief Justice Marshall 
not only fails to sustain tliese gentlemen, but bases the acquisi- 
tion of territory, either by conquest or treaty, upon the war- 
making and treaty-making powers conferred by the Constitution 
upon the Government. Certainly, the treaty having failed to pass, 
no gentleman will contend that we are attempting to take Hawaii 
by conquest or by the power to admit States. They must there- 
fore stand with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee 
[Mr. Hitt] , who insists, in substance, that the National Govern- 
ment has the inherent right to acquire territory in this manner. 
The Constitution having pointed out the several ways in which 
territory may be lawfully acquired, I for one decline to accept 
this new doctrine by which territory can eventually come into 
partnership with the States and have equal rights and representa- 
tion on the floor of Congress and elsewhere without first runmng 
the gantlet of every constitutional safeguard. • 

Mr. Speaker, I shall even venture to differ with those who de- 
clare this measure to be a military necessity. Even the array of 
expert testimony they bring to their support is not conclusive. A 
leading member of the bar once defined unreliable testimony as of 
three classes: " Ordinary liars, accomplished liars, and expert wit- 
nesses." [Laughter.] While I do not accede to this classifica- 
tion, I do know that great military and naval authority is not 
agreed at all times. It is also true that only witnesses in the 
matter were called who favored annexation. Even then, as stated 
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clark] , General Schofield, 
upon cross-examination, admitted that Pearl Harbor, now pos- 
sessed bv this country, was the only harbor that could be success- 
fully fortified and defended. I will say in passiug that we possess 
this harbor by treaty that can not be abrogated except by the 
consent of this Government. Again, we should bear in mind that, 
by professional instinct. Army and Navy ofificters are naturally 
predisposed toward that policy which would make this country a 
great military and naval power. 

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Will the gentleman allow me an m- 
terruption? 

Mr. BALL. Yes; certainly. 

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I want to make one statement, and 
3487 



it is the gospel truth, that every one of these statements in favor 
of annexation was an ex parte statement, and I believe that any 
ordinary lawyer, just a plain, ordinary, average lawyer, can take 
every one of these men and on cross-examination make him swear 
to the same thing that General Schofield swoi;e to, that that is the 
only harbor that can be fortified. 

Mr. BALL. All right, put that in ray speech. Now, against 
their judgment we have the safest of all guides — experience. For 
more than fifty years the Atlantic Ocean has bounded our eastern, 
the Gulf and Republic of Mexico our southern, the Pacific our 
western, and the British possessions our northern borders. Dur- 
ing this period we have made marvelous strides in progress, the 
development of our resources, and increase of population. We 
have waged the greatest of all wars in our own borders, placing 
in hostile conflict two armies either of which could have whipped 
the combined legions of Napoleon or Wellington. 

Since then we have nearly doubled our resources and popula- 
tion, and even now we are demonstrating to the world that the 
foreign power which breaks oiir peace must whip every man within 
our borders from Maine to Texas, from New York to California, 
before they can successfully give tis battle. Why, then, extend 
our borders more than 3,000 miles in the Pacific Ocean? To do so 
will be a breach of public and national faith. 

December 19, 1840, Mr. Webster announced that — 

The Govornment of the Saudwich Islands ought to he respected ; that no 
power ought to take possession of the islands, either as a conquest or for pur- 
poses of colonization. 

President Tyler, two years afterwards, reiterated the same doc- 
trine. 

In 1843 Secretary of State Legare notified our minister to Eng- 
land— 

That wo had no wish to acquire or plant colonies abroad, but would, if 
necessary, feel .I'ustified in using force to prevent their acquisition by one of 
the great powers of Europe. 

This, Mr. Speaker, has been our established policy. Twice 
England has occupied the islands and as often peacefully retired. 
Does anyone believe that in the face of all this that even a re- 
mote possibility exists that any foreign power would dare incur 
our displeasure by attempting to possess themselves of these 
islands? 

I must pass on. Mr. Speaker, it is not only unwise that we an- 
nex Hawaii, to do so will be a blunder approaching the gravity of 
a crime. I know that by many it is not considered up to date to 
quote Mr. Washington, Mr. Jefferson, or Mr. Madison, and yet I 
can not believe that the great and unselfish advice of these men, 
to whom we owe so much, should be lightly set aside. 

I would certainly, when in doubt, prefer to go to him who used 
his private means to aid the Government and declined to accept 
compensation as Commander of the Army and President of the 
United States, and refused a crown, rather than those who 
would convert a war for liberty and humanity into a vehicle of 
conquest and commercial gain. In his farewell message to the 
Congress ho warned us against a large standing army and cau- 
tioned us against entangling foreign alliances. With patriotic, 
far-seeing statesmanship, he adviseel against political connection 

3187 



with any foreign nation, called attention to tlieir mterests anvolv- 
to<; them in controversies foreign to our concerns. Said he. 

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a dif- 
f erent course. Wliy— 

should we forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our 
own to stand on foreign grounds.' _ 

That we mi«-ht be the more secure in our position, m I8.0 Mr. 
TVTnni o-lt-irtle 1 the world by putting the nations of the earth on 
Sethlrwe would not pe/mit foreign powers "to extend their 
Sem to am po? on this hemisphere." These po icies have 
blcome Sto the American people, without regard to party. 
Guided thSeb?, we have P-servedom^ Government ^^^^^^^^ 
ctvii-.rpfl all nations in the race for supremacy. \V e na . e surpabtea 
S^?v power mSntaining a colonial policy, having none ourselves. 
We ha?e seenthe flags of monarchies go down in South America, 
Central America, and the islands of the sea, and flags over liberty- 
invino- rpnublics hoisted in their stead. „..,»• 

We"ha??seen a foreign emperor left to his fate m Mexico upon 
a simple li-otest ly us and upin the ruins of his throne a Republic 
creSecl What more can we ask? Why no continue along the 
Une of our greS. destiny, settling our internal questions npon nust 
and properfinesand cleveloping our magnificent resourc^^^^^ 
Tippd have we for the sugar lands of Havv^^n? i tni tj -sixtnousanu 
?aSaie miles of sugar land in Texas, as fertile as the valley of the 
Nile Iwait development. Louisiana calls for money and men to 
m icker-ner fertile^ soil, while Nebraska and other l^eet-sugar pro- 
ducinl&Ses demand our attention. Only the other day the 
Washington Post stated: 

Imperial Texas can produce food products for the entirepopulation of the 
United States. 

Vpq and furnish the wool and cotton to clothe them and the 
IpIhe'rtS shoe them. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Johnson] 
i?ho?t wh le agoTn this House made a correct statement "that 
Texas c^ud deceive the population of the Union without being 
Sded '' Do?oi, gentleien. not find it difficult now to .Irame 
lawl that will satisfy Maine and Texas, California and Louisiana, 
SneStalndSouthCarolina.PennsylvaniaandAlabama? Why^^ 
?ie fi?st thiSg they found when we captured Manila and desired 
to colllct thetr customs, was that the Dingley bill, whose authors 
prom4ed un've?^^ prosnerity, was not adapted to the Phihppme 
hlands and we retained the Spanish laws. ..,,,., 4. u 

Fnthusiasts may paint glowing pictures of Hawaii, but the stub- 
born fact remaTns-that white xSen can network under a tropical 
snn Thev may prate of Ataericanizing it, but can not deny that 
Serimerkan influence for nearly three-quarters of ^-^ century 
tW ai-e no more than 2,000 American male citizens, less even 
StS numbei- of lepers there now. They can not controvert 
Sniitof anonulationof about 110,000, more than two-thirds 
arfm?n iooEKfHa^iians, 2^,000 are Japanese, 22,000 ai;e 
Chinese 15 000 are Portuguese, 1,000 are South Sea Is:anders 
4 000 S white foreigners, and only 8,000 are Americans male and 
Salt Suih as th?se we have legislated against; such as these 
So not desire as competitors with free-born American laborers. 
To take Hawaii, therefore, means not only to change our tradi- 
tional policTas to colonial aggrandizement and abohsh the Monroe 

34ir 



doctrine, but it means to absorb a population that are alien to our 
form of government and strangers to our institutions. It means 
that the American flag, consecrated to the cause of liberty, shall 
float over a people wliere there can be no "union of hearts nor 
union of hands;" where the principle that "all men are created 
equal" must stand aside, while the franchised few must control 
the disfranchised many. Hawaii is but the entering wedge for 
other colonial possessions. What right have we to change a policy 
that has turned the eyes of the liberty loving of every land to our 
shores as an asylum for the oppressed? 

Dare we take the chances for all time to come when so little is 
at stake on the one side, our all on the other? If we stand by the 
faith, keep in the paths our fathers trod, not a hundred years 
hence 250,000,000 American citizens within our present borders will 
command the peace of the world and shape its civilization. 

May God forbid that we take passage upon an unknown sea, and 
When, too late, we are asked from the watchtowers of liberty and 
free government. " Sentinels, what of the night? " we may not be 
able to say, "All is well." [Ai^plause.] 
mi 

O 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 710 1 % 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



